[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 24 (Tuesday, March 10, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H917]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     LET US HAVE AN UP OR DOWN VOTE ON SCHOOL VOUCHERS FOR EVERYONE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) is recognized during morning hour debates for 3 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, if the average American had a kid in 
almost any public school today, what do you believe she would say if 
someone advertised free money for scholarships to attend private or 
religious schools? How about you colleagues?
  If you are like most Americans, you believe that private schools are 
more selective, have better classes in some important subjects, have a 
better teacher/student ratio. Why not apply? Private certainly have 
better reputations in many parts of the country. Free money for such 
schools would probably get many takers if advertised anywhere in this 
country among any group.
  Last year, some District of Columbia ministers were asked to sign on 
to a letter to support free scholarships--that is how it was called--
for D.C. kids. They, too, jumped at the opportunity.
  When they found out that these scholarships were, in fact, publicly 
funded vouchers, which take taxpayer dollars away from public schools, 
they felt deceived, had a press conference, and took their names off of 
the letter and off of the campaign.
  In public meetings around the District, I have raised this subject 
regularly with my constituents who have now applied in numbers over 
7,000 for some free scholarship money. Who in America would not? They 
are no different, however, from the 69 percent of Americans who say 
that they do not want public money to go to vouchers for private 
schools. In the District, 89 percent have voted against private school 
vouchers.
  What the majority puts up against this vote is a poll slanted with 
words to try to defeat what the people said at the polls. Why is the 
majority picking on D.C.? If they are for vouchers, why not bring a 
bill to the floor to have an up or down vote for everybody for 
vouchers? What are they afraid of? Why do they go for the smallest, 
least powerful district in America? We are not the only district, I 
have to tell my colleagues, that has poor public schools.
  I think it just may be because so many States have turned down 
vouchers at the polls, just as D.C. has. Listen to hear whether your 
State is in this list.

                              {time}  1245

  New York, Michigan, Nebraska, Oregon, Idaho, Maryland, Washington, 
Missouri, Alaska, California, Massachusetts, Utah, Colorado. What a 
cross-section of America has turned down private vouchers with public 
money at the polls!
  Even when voucher advocates lose, however, they double back and lose 
again, always by more than they lost the first time. In California they 
lost first by 61 percent; then by 70 percent. In Washington State first 
by 61 percent; then they lost by 65 percent. In Massachusetts the first 
time they lost by 62 percent, then they lost by 70 percent. And here in 
the District, vouchers, public vouchers with public school money, have 
lost by 89 percent.
  My constituents do want a better education for their children, but 
they are neither foolish nor selfish. They want educational choice but 
not at the expense of their own public schools here in the District.
  I ask my colleagues: Do we want to help poor children get a better 
education, or do we want a veto, or do we want a lawsuit? Because that 
is all we will get out of a voucher bill for the District coming to the 
floor at this time.
  If we are serious, there is a way to get scholarships for the 
remaining kids. Please join me in a group committed to raising private 
money for children who want to attend private schools in the District 
of Columbia.

                          ____________________